Appeal No. 96-1727
Application 08/130,575
OPINION
Because we have difficulty in following the examiner’s correlation of the claimed
features to Nishi, difficulty in agreeing with the examiner, and in part due to our agreement
with some of appellants’ views as to this correlation, we reverse the outstanding rejection
of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as set forth by the examiner. However, we
institute our own rejection under the provision of 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) as set forth below.
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Nishi alone.
The subject matter of independent claim 1 on appeal appears to be met by the
teachings at columns 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and clearly would have been obvious
over Nishi’s admitted prior art with respect to Figures 1 and 2. The claimed processor
side memory for storing image data to be processed comprises the data memory 103 in
prior art Figure 1 where the processor means recited is met by the CPU 102 which does in
fact process the image data supplied from that memory for placement into the VRAM 104
through the video data processor VDP 101 before the display means claimed presents the
information on CRT 105. According to the teachings of Nishi regarding Figure 1, the CPU
102 and/or the VDP 101 may control the processing and storing of image data transmitted
from the processor CPU 102. The VDP 101 comprises the claimed control means since it
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007